CENTRAL WAREHOUSING Vs. O ROSAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein. The appeal is preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.8325 of 1986 setting aside the orders passed by the 2nd appellant by which the respondent who is the employee of the appellants and who was promoted from the post of Superintendent to that of Storage and Inspection Officer and was put on probation was served with an order dated 25-6-1986 resulting in the reversion of the respondent to the lower post of Superintendent. By reason of stay, pendingwrit petition and by reason of subsequentallowing of the writpetition, the respondent is still continuing in the post of Storage and Inspection Officer. The respondent was initially appointed in the service of the 1st respondent-Central Warehousing Corporation as Junior Technical Assistant with effect from 1-9-1969 and was further promoted as Superintendent with effect from 30-6-1978. By proceedings dated 25-4-1984, he was promoted to the post of Storage and Inspection Officer and was placed on probation for a period of one year which was extendable for a further period of one year. On 10-7-1985, the respondent received a memorandum to the effect that his probation has been extended for a further period of 6 months i.e., upto 28-12-1985. Again, the probation was extended by six more months i.e., upto 28-6-1986. Three days prior to the expiry of the same i.e., on25-6-1986, the respondent was served with an order stating that since hi s performance has not been found to be satisfactory, he is reverted to the post of Superintendent.

(2.) The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice as an opportunity of representation and hearing, though necessary, were not afforded to the respondent. The premise on which the learned Judge passed the order holding that the principles of natural justice have been violated, is that the reversion was not a simpliciter and non-declaration of the probation and consequent reversion of the respondent was coupled with stigma and not simpliciter.

(3.) Mr. G. Ramachander Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contends that the order of reversion is simpliciter and not casting any stigma and to support his argument, he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Unit Trust of India & others vs. T. Bijaya Kumar and another1 and in G. Council of K.M.I. of Oncology vs. Dr. P. Gadwalker and others2. The learned Counsel also cited the decisions in S.P. Vasudeva vs. State of Haryana3, State of Rajasthan vs. Pabudan Singh4and State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra5.